by Tony Cook and Tim Evans, The Indianapolis Star

But the court did so for reasons that differed from the lower court's, a development that appeased an unlikely alliance of free speech advocates. They worried that the blogger's conviction could set a dangerous precedent for those who sometimes criticize public officials.

Daniel Brewington, 39, of Cincinnati was convicted in 2011 of intimidation of a judge, attempted obstruction of justice and perjury for comments he wrote on a blog about the southern Indiana judge who presided over his contentious divorce case.

Brewington thought - and argued in court - that he was exercising his First Amendment right to criticize a public official, but prosecutors decided his statements crossed the line from free speech into criminal behavior. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the most serious of his convictions in January 2013.

In a unanimous decision Thursday, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the conviction against Brewington, who has since been released after serving much of a five-year sentence. But justices said the appeals court failed to draw a distinction between fear for one's reputation and fear for one's safety.

"It is every American's constitutional right to criticize, even ridicule, judges and other participants in the judicial system - and those targets must bear that burden as the price of free public discourse," the court's 35-page decision says. "But that right does not permit threats against the safety and security of any American, even public officials, regardless of whether those threats are accompanied by some protected criticism."

At issue for prosecutors was Brewington's obsessive, years-long campaign against the judge in the divorce case. That campaign included faxes, court motions and online blog posts.

Supreme Court justices found that while many of Brewington's individual rants may have been protected free speech, others constituted credible threats to the judge's safety when put in their full context. That context included Brewington's references to himself as an "accomplished pyromaniac" and his online posting of the judge's address.

The court's focus on threats to safety rather than threats to the judge's reputation satisfied the unusual coalition of conservatives, liberals, academics and media advocates, including The Indianapolis Star, who had joined Brewington in his appeal.

The groups that signed on to a friend of the court brief weren't interested in the minutiae of Brewington's divorce and custody fight. Their concern extended to a broader issue: a belief that Indiana's intimidation law - particularly as interpreted by the Court of Appeals in Brewington's case - violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"His conviction was upheld but only on the grounds that he made threats of violence that can be punished," said Jim Bopp, a high-profile Republican attorney from Terre Haute who represented the coalition. "They said you can threaten someone with criticism and that can't be punished, but if you threaten someone with violence, that can be punished."

Star Editor Jeff Taylor said the newspaper's involvement centered on free speech and freedom of the press.

"We weren't endorsing Brewington or his actions," he said. "We were focused on the First Amendment issues - on the question of whether the intimidation law, as interpreted here, infringed on protected speech and could open the door to misuse by public officials in other circumstances."

Of the many parties involved in the case, only Brewington's attorney, Michael Sutherlin, expressed disappointment in the decision.

"The language was harsh, no doubt about it. It was over the top. We conceded that. But that's exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment protects," he said. "In this case, I think they were really bothered by the attack on a judge, and they were circling the wagons."

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, who represented the state in opposing Brewington's appeal, said the case was a matter of public safety.

"We all revere the First Amendment, but the law provides that the right of self-expression does not include the right to threaten violence or harm against another person," Zoeller said. "The jury found that the defendant crossed that line, and so we advocated for leaving intact the defendant's felony convictions."